• 0 Posts
  • 15 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 9th, 2023

help-circle

  • Their proposal is that, when you visit a website using WEI, it doesn’t let you see it right away. Instead, it first asks a third party if you’re “legit”, as opposed to maybe a bot or something.

    The problem is, it would be really tricky to tell if you’re “legit”, because people get very, very tricky and clever with their bots (not to mention things like content farms, which aren’t even bots, they’re real humans, just doing the same job as a bot would). So, in order to try to do their jobs at all, these kind of third parties would have to try to find out a whole bunch of stuff about you.

    Now, websites already try to do that, but for now the arms race is actually on our side; the end user has more or less full control over what code a website can run on their browser (which is how extensions like u-block and privacy badger work).

    But if the end user could just block data collection, the third-party is back to square one. How can they possibly verify (“attest”) that you aren’t sus, if you’re preventing all attempts at collecting data about yourself, or your device / operating system / browser / etc?

    The answer is, they can’t. So, to do a proper attestation, they have to have a whole bunch of information about you. And if they can’t, they logically have no way of knowing if you’re a bot. And if that’s the case, when the third-party reports that back to the website you’re trying to visit, they’ll assume you’re a bot, and block you. Obviously.

    That’s pretty much my understanding of the situation. In order to actually implement this proposal, it would require unprecedented invasive measures for data collection; and for people who try to block it, they might just end up being classified as “bots” and basically frozen out of major parts of the internet. Especially because, when you consider how people can essentially just use whatever hardware and software they want, it would be in these big companies’ interests to restrict consumer choice to only the hardware and software they deem acceptable. Basically, it’s a conflict of interest, especially because the one trying to push this on everyone is Google themselves.

    Now, Google obviously denies all that. They assure us it won’t be used for invasive data collection, that people will be able to opt out without losing access to websites, that there won’t be any discrimination against anyone’s personal choice of browser/OS/device/etc.

    But it’s bullshit. They’re lying. It’s that shrimple.


  • complacent_jerboa@lemmy.worldtoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    What they should do — what we should force all corporations to do, and governments for that matter — is to respect the fundamental human right to privacy. And in the meantime, they should stop getting in people’s way when it comes to repairing their devices at the repair shop of their own choosing, and getting in people’s way when they want to get literally any software on their device not expressly approved by Apple.

    The choice isn’t “either they do what they do now, or they just let everyone collect data”. Big tech corporations like Apple, Google, and all the rest have, from a privacy perspective, been fucking us up the ass for years and years now. Apple’s entire “we care about your privacy” thing was, aside from a big PR success, pretty much just a giant middle finger to Facebook, and its other data collecting competitors. Fuck Apple, fuck Facebook, fuck Google, fuck them all.




  • Well, if you host a server, you can either host it on the cloud (which costs $$$), or you can host it by yourself (if you have a spare computer that you can just use as a server). If you host it yourself, all you’re really paying is the same stuff you already pay — internet and electricity.

    Hosting a server for something like mumble, matrix, or lemmy only has the costs I mentioned above.





  • While it’s true people don’t say “I’ve joined ActivityPub”, isn’t that synonymous with “I’ve joined the Fediverse”? Besides, the organization behind it does market it that way — they themselves refer to it as “joining Matrix, using one of these clients” (Element, Fluffychat, etc). Like, that’s what their website is called, and so is the Matrix server they host.

    Their centralization is, I think, a little more advanced than Mastodon’s. The organization that maintains the protocol regularly adds features to it, and then of course immediately updates their own client and server implementations to have those same, recently added features, meaning the other client and server implementations are always behind on at least a few features. It’s becoming reminiscent of how the web browser spec is so bloated, and gets new stuff added to it with such regularity, that new browsers are basically impractical.


  • complacent_jerboa@lemmy.worldtoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago
    • matrix isn’t a fediverse thing, it’s its own thing. it does happen to be decentralized, like the fediverse.

    • matrix isn’t an alternative to discord. it’s an alternative to whatsapp/signal/telegram/etc.

    • matrix is nice (I use it with my friend group), but it’s not perfect. we’re looking for something better.

    • if you’re looking for a decentralized, self-hosted, open-source, secure alternative for discord, my friends and I use Mumble. It works great for VoIP (and its noise cancellation software actually seems to work noticeably better than Discord’s), but it doesn’t really have the advanced text chat features that Discord does. We make do with Matrix.